Relieving Letter and Experience Certificate Are Not Compellable Where Non-Acceptance of Resignation Is Justified

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Relieving Letter and...

In Bharat Aviation Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Rahul Sudhindra Soni, 2026, Live Law BHC-OS:11556, the Bombay High Court reiterated that contractual obligations arising under a valid service bond are capable of enforcement, and that a bond condition cannot, merely by its existence, be treated as unconstitutional or violative of the Indian Contract Act. Relying on Amrit Pal Singh v. Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. and Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware, the Court held that where an employee, after securing specialised training, resigns in breach of the agreed bond period and without complying with the contractual exit conditions, the employer may be justified in not accepting the resignation. In such circumstances, issuance of a relieving letter or service/experience certificate is only a consequential act following acceptance of resignation. Therefore, where non-acceptance of resignation is legally justified, the employer cannot be compelled to issue a relieving letter or experience certificate as a matter of right.

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Ajay Protech Pvt. Ltd. v. General Manager & Anr.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Protech extended time allowing the Arbitral Tribunal to pass an Award, even after expiry of the statutory period stipulated U/S. 29A(1) of the Act and held that ‘Sufficient Cause’ U/S. 29A(5) should be interpreted to “facilitate effective dispute resolution.” The dispute arose after the tribunal’s mandate... Read more »

Ajay Madhusudan Patel & Ors. v. Jyotrindra S. Patel & Ors

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Madhusudan Patel while appointing a sole arbitrator, reiterated factors that signify the intention of a non-signatory to be bound by the Arbitration Agreement. The factors as laid down in Cox and Kings being – mutual intent of parties, relationship of a non-signatory with a signatory... Read more »

Sazid Khan Vs. State of Haryana, 2018 Scc Online P&H 1733

The court held that, Criminal law does not recognise the terms ‘same cause of action’. A per se FIR cannot be cancelled once evidence implicating the petitioner in a conspiracy has been discovered. As soon as an accused makes an attempt to commit an offence, they are subject to punishment, and many offences of this... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.